WC: Women's World Championships in Finland

[Dr Pepper]

Just got caught up on all the controversy surrounding this one.

What a tough break for Finland, but congrats on making it that far and knocking off the Canadians along the way!

 

[FiLe]

You must be misinterpreting some number, because this would mean that women's hockey is a lot more popular than men's hockey, which it isn't, as evidenced by far less attention in media and social media.

There's actually a good explanation for the number. There was a moment when YLE, the national channel, showed the game and the election night broadcast in split screen.

 

[Canada4Gold]

The IIHF press release makes them look worse. At least before people could have assumed the rule was dumb and because of 1 foot in the crease it could be viewed as incendental contact in the crease. Instead they publicly say it wasn’t incendiary contact outside the crease. It’s clearly incendental at best, and a penalty on the American goalie at worst. How they can publicly say this wasn’t incendental baffles me, the skater is skating to the corner on a line that misses the goalie until the goalie lunges out.

I knew they couldn’t review the penalty call. However the fact that apparently the ref herself could rescind the penalty call but didn’t makes it so much worse. There are 3 parts to this spectrum, not incendental and a FIN penalty, incendental, or a penalty on the USA goalie. The fact that the official and the reviewers are on completely different ends of the spectrum here and the position the review personnel made is the only one of the 3 that doesn’t result in Finland winning makes them look really really bad.

 

[Murky]

I see why you think that, but actually according to the rule it does not matter whether it was the goaltender that caused the contact situation as long as the intent of the goalie was to play the puck. The skater then has to do what is reasonable to avoid or minimize contact. What we have here now is an extreme interpretation of that by the video referee. The rules clearly gave her an opportunity to disallow the goal even if it was the most controversial thing to do.

I am not sure if we agree, but my point is that the goalie is not playing the puck as it was already out of her reach. It can be seen pretty well from the overhead camera. So it was just tripping. In a live situation I would forgive the ref making a wrong call here as it was very quick but she made the right one. The video ref with all the time managed to make the wrong call by making a very extreme interpretation of both that and then at the same time thinking that the Finnish skater should somehow have been able to do more to try to avoid the contact. That is two extreme interpretations already.

It was just a bad call. IIHF just doesn't seem to manage to improve on professionalism. How Fasel still has a job after all these years is beyond me.

 

[Jussi]

There's actually a good explanation for the number. There was a moment when YLE, the national channel, showed the game and the election night broadcast in split screen.

Clarification for others, the game was on on YLE 2, election coverage on YLE 1 and after the overtime goal they switched to the game on YLE 1 as well for a while.

Pop quiz, hot shots: name another country in the world that would do that for a hockey game.

 

[Albatros]

I am not sure if we agree, but my point is that the goalie is not playing the puck as it was already out of her reach.

I don't think probability of success can be a factor here, decisive is that she was involved in positional play.

"An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count."

 

[Mestaruus]

Iivo Niskanen. Bronze from the World Championships. Hockey teams still have a chance though. And if Pukki Party continues in the Premiership next season, maybe him.

Bottas should be a candidate if he keeps driving like this. I'd give the award to Pukki. Very hard for hockey players to win that award indeed.

 

[Murky]

I don't think probability of success can be a factor here, decisive is that she was involved in positional play.

"An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count."

Surely it has to be a factor! A goalie can't just dive somewhere hitting opposing player and assume that any goal will be disallowed. Goalies facing Ovi's one timer would be diving left all the time

It is the same thing as with the effort to avoid contact. Common sense must be used. The puck was gone and the goalie reached out to trip the Finnish forward and thus initiated the contact. Goalie is issued a minor like she was, and the goal should count as it did as per refs on the ice.

 

[Mestaruus]

You must be misinterpreting some number, because this would mean that women's hockey is a lot more popular than men's hockey, which it isn't, as evidenced by far less attention in media and social media.

If that 2.4 m peak is true, it doesn't mean that it's more popular than men's hockey. Perfectly believable that people tuned in in the middle of the match and saw that it's close and kept on watching, eventually producing this peak 2.4 million viewers number on a boring sunday night, prime time hours.

If it was 2.4 m average numbers during the whole broadcast of the women's final, then that would be shocking to me.

 

[Mestaruus]

There's actually a good explanation for the number. There was a moment when YLE, the national channel, showed the game and the election night broadcast in split screen.

Good point. That's dirty fake news type of stuff from the media to twist it as if it's really 2.4 million. I understand that it's a commercial to notify people to watch it but that the channel probably bragged and said it's 2.4 million to boast, funny.

 

[Mestaruus]

The IIHF press release makes them look worse. At least before people could have assumed the rule was dumb and because of 1 foot in the crease it could be viewed as incendental contact in the crease. Instead they publicly say it wasn’t incendiary contact outside the crease. It’s clearly incendental at best, and a penalty on the American goalie at worst. How they can publicly say this wasn’t incendental baffles me, the skater is skating to the corner on a line that misses the goalie until the goalie lunges out.

I knew they couldn’t review the penalty call. However the fact that apparently the ref herself could rescind the penalty call but didn’t makes it so much worse. There are 3 parts to this spectrum, not incendental and a FIN penalty, incendental, or a penalty on the USA goalie. The fact that the official and the reviewers are on completely different ends of the spectrum here and the position the review personnel made is the only one of the 3 that doesn’t result in Finland winning makes them look really really bad.

Agreed, it didn't look intentional to me and that's what it all comes down to.

 

[Lempo]

You must be misinterpreting some number, because this would mean that women's hockey is a lot more popular than men's hockey, which it isn't, as evidenced by far less attention in media and social media.

At the same time, that number 2.4M out of 5.4M actually is on the edge of possibility for a men's WHC game, late in tournament.

 

[Albatros]

Surely it has to be a factor! A goalie can't just dive somewhere hitting opposing player and assume that any goal will be disallowed. Goalies facing Ovi's one timer would be diving left all the time

It is the same thing as with the effort to avoid contact. Common sense must be used. The puck was gone and the goalie reached out to trip the Finnish forward and thus initiated the contact. Goalie is issued a minor like she was, and the goal should count as it did as per refs on the ice.

The video referee had a different read, and was entitled to have. Personally I favor video referees having only an assisting role and the referee on the ice the final say (and preferably an independent video review possibility), but the IIHF has decided differently and given the final say to the video referee. Perhaps they are encouraged to have second thoughts now, but the farcical way things unfolded was ultimately by the book.

 

[Murky]

The video referee had a different read, and was entitled to have. Personally I favor video referees having only an assisting role and the referee on the ice the final say (and preferably an independent video review possibility), but the IIHF has decided differently and given the final say to the video referee. Perhaps they are encouraged to have second thoughts now, but the farcical way things unfolded was ultimately by the book.

Sure, I can agree to all of that.

If I understood correctly, you think that while goalie did initiate the contact but she was doing so while reaching for the puck and, therefore a different rule applies, which is fair enough, and that is how I also understand the video referee saw it.

I think the goalie knew the puck was gone, as to me it was completely clear from the ceiling that she had no chance and did not really even lunge at the direction of the puck but rather more towards the corner straight into the skates of the Finnish forward. Therefore in my opinion she was most likely just fishing for a penalty and a stoppage of play and, it cost them a goal and a game, that an incompetent video referee later overturned.

But enough of this. I thank you for an excellent conversation

 

[jj cale]

I don't want to make any enemies but that was clearly a good goal.

but, now Finland has shown they are really with the big boys(girls)

 

[behemolari]

I don't want to make any enemies but that was clearly a good goal.

but, now Finland has shown they are really with the big boys(girls)

I really hope there is no more women games held in Finland, neither they participate those held in NA, this went beyond resilience. Let them play each other as they wish.

 

[Calendal]

I don't think probability of success can be a factor here, decisive is that she was involved in positional play.

"An attacking skater who makes contact other than incidental with a goaltender who is out of his goal crease during game action will be assessed a minor penalty for interference. If a goal is scored at this time, it will not count."

Given that video ref can’t assess penalties, I don’t think they should be able to use this particular rule?

 

[Jussi]

IIHF vice secretary Kalervo "The Hutt" Kummola said he's going to recommend at the IIHF board/general coucil meeting that video refs would only decide whether the puck was over the line. In all other situations, the video feed would be available for the on-ice refs at the officials desk and they would make the decision. He said it's a 50-50 on whether it passes.

Team Finland player Linda Välimäki commented on the Susanna Tapani penalty shot that she's seen her succeed with it and that it would have been a great goal.

 

[Albatros]

Despite all initial criticism VAR in soccer has proven to work quite a bit better, copying the central elements of it would also work in hockey.

 

[FiLe]

Now even Rene Fasel came out, calling it a good goal. He also heavily criticized the length of the review, saying it should by no means have taken 10+ minutes. He also echoed the sentiments of Kummola, stating that the on-ice officials should have the final say.

Still won't change the official result, obviously, but I'd be surprised if certain video ref doesn't soon find herself from studying the classified ads.

 

[AgentBrodeur]

we had Tom Wilson score a goal and a penalty at the same time.

But does finland think they won, shooting on an empty net? Yes the USA goalie was about a skate blade outside the crease, but bowled over. No chance to make the save.

 

[BourqueFromORRk4277]

I still can't figure out why the ref thought the goalie initiated contact. You can clearly see she was reaching out to catch the puck when the Finnish player chops her glove out of the way(0:41 in the video), and then runs into her, knocks her down, which pushes her behind the net(0:44). That is not incidental contact. That is the definition of goalie interference. They were lucky to have a pp, and not be shorthanded.

 

[Jussi]

we had Tom Wilson score a goal and a penalty at the same time.

But does finland think they won, shooting on an empty net? Yes the USA goalie was about a skate blade outside the crease, but bowled over. No chance to make the save.

Well the issue here is that she initiated the contact outside the zone and both she and Hiirikoski went for the loose puck. It really shouldn't have been called goalie interference as many refs have pointed out.

 

[Jussi]

Finnish hockey federation are paying the players gold medal bonuses of 7000 euros instead of the 5000 euro silver medal bonuses.

 

[jj cale]

I really hope there is no more women games held in Finland, neither they participate those held in NA, this went beyond resilience. Let them play each other as they wish.

Ah, they just go out and get them next time they meet, they can do it.